In this interview, Dennis Prager and columnist Dan Henninger discuss what they characterize as a six‑decade pattern of failure in Democratic‑run urban neighborhoods such as the Bronx, Brownsville, Compton, Watts, East St. Louis, and Chicago’s South Side. They argue that progressive prosecutors, elected across many cities, are pushing policies that replace traditional policing with sociologists, social workers, and other “interveners,” claiming this will reduce crime—a stance they deem morally reprehensible. The conversation shifts to media narratives that attribute urban unrest to Donald Trump, which they label as a form of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” They warn that animosity toward Trump could lead to post‑election violence, citing Attorney General William Barr’s suggestion that prosecutors consider sedition charges against potential demonstrators. Throughout, they differentiate between “liberals” and the “left,” asserting that the left’s irrationality infects the Democratic Party as a whole.
Chapters
that the defeat of Donald Trump is the end of violence?
Yeah, um, clearly, clearly they do. Uh, but these, you know, they kind of relate to the rise of the so-called progressive prosecutors in so many cities. Um, Those prosecutors, Dennis, did not seize power in any way. They were all elected.
Yes, that's my point.
Yes, that's right. And yep. And the liberal mind now has gotten to the point where, um, it actually believes things such as that reducing the police function and replacing it— and this is explicit in their plans— replacing it with sociologists, social workers, interveners, and so forth. Is going to reduce crime in those neighborhoods. And I have to say, I have written about this before, Dennis. To me, this is one of the greatest, most morally reprehensible issues of our time, which is to say, for 60 years, liberals, Democratic cities have been in charge of neighborhoods like the Bronx, Brownsville in Brooklyn, Compton, Watts, East St. Louis, South Side of Chicago, on and on. 60 years of failure, because those neighborhoods have not changed all that much, and we know what's going on every weekend in places like the South Side of Chicago or the Bronx. I think what's been going on here is that liberalism is so appalled and so embarrassed at this catastrophe that they now are trying to simply explain it away as something that doesn't exist. In other words, these aren't real crimes, these are behavioral problems.
Right.
That is irrational.
Or a result of Donald Trump. That's what your colleague— well, they're not your colleagues— your fellow quote-unquote journalists. I don't think that the New York Times deserves that term, but you don't have to react to that. But that's what they are saying down the street, as it were, from the Wall Street Journal at the New York Times. All of this is a result of Donald Trump. And I believe a serious percentage of Americans believe that.
The, the animosity towards Trump, whatever one may think about Trump personally or his policies, the level of animosity towards him has obviously reached, I think, seriously, a clinical neurosis. Uh, we talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome. Well, I hope someday psychologists are actually writing about it explicitly. But as you know, we now have the spectacle really of articles being written in the mainstream media, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, suggesting that Democrats somehow may not be able to emotionally accept a possible Trump victory. They themselves suggesting there may be violence in the street.
That's right.
Over that. Yep. Um, that, that is just Unbelievable in my mind. And I think that's really why Attorney General Barr yesterday suggested the prosecutors consider sedition, prosecuting people for sedition, because I think he sees a situation coming after the election in which a lot of Democrats simply won't accept it and are going to engage in violent, violent demonstrations against a legitimate presidency.
That's the reason, and this was not a challenge, it was truly an open question. Have we, I think there is an element of insanity, but I also think that there's a moral element, which you do too, obviously, you said it's morally reprehensible. So what you're saying though, I mean, let's be clear. If the left, and I always distinguish between left and liberal, if the left is insane, Then the Democratic Party is insane because it's run by the left.
Yes, I mean, I suggested as much in my column that the Democrats are tipping over into a kind of irrationality. And one's hope— and I'm with you, Dennis, I do try to make that distinction between liberals and the left. And one keeps hoping that, um, that the liberals will do the same. We'll do the same.
All right, let me tell everybody, your column is up, of course, at our website. Thank you for writing it, and let's pray for the best. Thank you, Dan Henninger.
